Theingroup presentation-new

497 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
497
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
133
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Bring the actual survey they filled out and hold it up to jog their memory.
  • Ask Bryce if I should even include the moral words.
  • Run this by Bryce: Good variation and scattered data suggests words represent a strong mix of positive/negative emotion and “humanness”
  • Theingroup presentation-new

    1. 1. INFRAHUMANIZATION <ul><li>Multiculturalism and infrahumanization </li></ul><ul><li>In today's multicultural society, ethnic minorities may be infrahumanized as they are perceived as not being socially integrated. </li></ul><ul><li>Research has shown that Roma Gypsies are infrahumanized across Europe. (Perez, Chulvi & Alonso, 2001) </li></ul><ul><li>Underlying aim: To examine the source of this infrahumanization between majority and ethnic minorities, and apply to it the current political gridlock both in Congress and in the blogosphere. </li></ul>Process by which group members tend to associate more human attributes to members of the ingroup than the outgroup
    2. 2. “ We’re humans; they’re animals!” <ul><li>Primary & secondary emotions (Leyens et al) </li></ul><ul><li>Primary emotions are common to animals and humans (e.g. anger, surprise, fear, and disgust), while secondary emotions are exclusively human (e.g. nostalgia). </li></ul><ul><li>Primary emotions attributed to both in-group and out-group </li></ul><ul><li>Secondary emotions to in-group only </li></ul>
    3. 3. Research question <ul><li>Research question : Does computer-mediated communication (CMC) between members of opposing groups lead to greater evidence of infrahumanization than face-to-face communication? </li></ul>
    4. 4. Infrahumanization <ul><li>Process by which group members tend to associate more human attributes to members of the ingroup than the outgroup </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Primary Emotions: anger, fear, sadness, joy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Secondary emotions: sorrow, admiration, fondness </li></ul></ul>Effect of infrahumanization is diminished when the outgroup is established as individuals rather than group members
    5. 5. Infrahumanization <ul><li>H1: more infrahumanization toward outgroup than ingroup </li></ul><ul><li>H2: less infrahumanization when describing individual partner than group </li></ul>
    6. 6. SIDE <ul><li>When social identity is salient, and members are visually anonymous, partners relate on the basis of the group. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More likely to stereotype </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More likely to conform to norms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Overattribution </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Infrahumanization and CMC <ul><li>H3a: more infrahumanization in CMC than FtF when describing outgroup </li></ul><ul><li>H3b: less infrahumanization in CMC than FtF when describing ingroup </li></ul>
    8. 8. Pilot Data: Word Matrix <ul><li>Survey of 48 words we conducted in class to help us determine the status of each word used in the actual study. </li></ul>
    9. 9. Pilot Data: The Survey
    10. 10. Primary vs. Secondary <ul><li>Looked at 3 Categories of Words*: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Animal/Human Words </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Examples: Educated, Civilized, Criminal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emotion Words </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Examples: Hopeful, Optimistic, Disenchanted </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Moral Words </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Examples: Virtuous, Righteous, Praiseworthy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>*We tested 12 words in each category plus an additional 12 filler words to arrive at 48 total. </li></ul>
    11. 11. Humanness vs.Valence
    12. 12. Methodology <ul><li>Grade Obama Admin (e.g A+, B, C+, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>CMC Instant Messaging vs. Face-To-Face </li></ul><ul><li>Democrats/Liberals v. Republicans/Conservatives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group identity made salient </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Eliciting of Emotions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Methodology <ul><li>Word Choice Paradigm </li></ul><ul><li>Choose words that describe outgroup </li></ul><ul><li>Choose words that describe partner </li></ul>
    14. 14. Preliminary Results <ul><li>For our purposes today, eight words matter </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Uniquely human emotions: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>hopeful, optimistic, resentful, disenchanted </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Uniquely human descriptors: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>civilized, educated, folksy, criminal </li></ul></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Preliminary Results <ul><li>Counting these words created the “uniquely human” score we are using for this study </li></ul><ul><li>High scores indicate high ratings of uniquely human qualities </li></ul>
    16. 16. Preliminary Results <ul><li>Evidence of infrahumanization? Yes. </li></ul>H1: more infrahumanization toward outgroup than ingroup H2: less infrahumanization when describing individual partner than group
    17. 17. Preliminary Results <ul><li>How people viewed their partners </li></ul>H3a: more infrahumanization in CMC than FtF when describing outgroup H3b: less infrahumanization in CMC than FtF when describing ingroup
    18. 18. Preliminary Results <ul><li>How people viewed their ingroup </li></ul>
    19. 19. Preliminary Results <ul><li>How people described the outgroup </li></ul>
    20. 20. Preliminary Results | Trends <ul><li>Whom we talk to influences how “human” we rate groups </li></ul>
    21. 21. Preliminary Results | Trends <ul><li>Medium matters, especially for intergroup situations </li></ul>Two participants after talking face to face: “ We’re friends now.” One participant after talking via CMC: “ Was I even talking to a real person?”
    22. 22. Preliminary Results <ul><li>Limitations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sample size (n=15, so far) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>10 Minute Time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Party balance: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>13 Democrats </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2 Republicans (3 actually, but one resulted in spoiled data that was discarded) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Future Research/Analysis <ul><li>Far-reaching implications in the way we interact as a society. </li></ul><ul><li>Ensuing biases - “ us &quot; & &quot; them ” </li></ul><ul><li>Human as a social identity </li></ul><ul><li>How did valence pan out in this study? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the underlying role of morality judgments in infrahumanization? </li></ul>
    24. 24. Contact Information <ul><li>http://theingroup.wordpress.com/ </li></ul>

    ×